Oh my god, me too. I've seen it several times in the theatre and sob like a baby every single time.

I know every word by heart. I've even performed one of the parts in our musical theatre program back in highschool.

Can't wait!

How was it? The reviews I've seen from people I know is that it wasn't very good. Too many "big name" movie actors and not enough theater actor who can actually sing. Said the sound was bad and the singing wasn't good either. One person said it was so unintelligible that if she didn't already know all the words to the songs, she wouldn't have been able to understand what was being sung.

Was it better for you?

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates

How was it? The reviews I've seen from people I know is that it wasn't very good. Too many "big name" movie actors and not enough theater actor who can actually sing. Said the sound was bad and the singing wasn't good either. One person said it was so unintelligible that if she didn't already know all the words to the songs, she wouldn't have been able to understand what was being sung.

Was it better for you?

Honestly - I absolutely loved it. It's hard for me to see it from the point of view of someone that is new to the concept of Les Miserables or isn't familiar with the stage version. This isn't meant to be a simple transfer from stage to screen. The songs are sung live (which has never been done before in a film) - the actors aren't lip synching to a pre-recorded version that's been glossed up and perfected in the studio... it's meant to be grittier and more intimate (ie. you hear the sobs, gasps, and natural pauses). If someone was just looking for soaring voices and perfect musicality, I can see how they might be disappointed. On stage everything needs to be bigger and the bravado of the song performances have to be what speaks to the audience... here on screen you get to watch the faces up close and really listen to the lyrics and get 'into' the story in a different way.

I don't know about your friend that said it was unintelligible... there are some big grand scores with chorus singing so I can see how certain lyrics might get lost, or if they're not used to musicals that can definitely affect the way you respond to this kind of story theatre.

Personally, I thought it was brilliant. Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway are the stars that really shine. They both come from a theatre background though. The only one I thought was probably miscast was Russell Crowe as Javert. I think he was distracted by the vocal demands of singing live and fell a little short on both the singing/acting side.

The thing about not having enough theatre actors - many of the big actors in Hollywood can trace their beginnings back to the stage and some still are actively involved in it. Samantha Barks has the most musical theatre experience and obviously her Eponine is beautifully cast. Many musical theatre actors, however, would fumble when it comes down to this kind of artistic interpretation of a show. The quieter moments, intimacy, and subtleties of acting aren't what gets you a role when it comes to musicals - your voice is going to be your ticket. Les Miz on stage is a phenomenal experience, but Lez Miz on screen is just a different kind of animal altogether and one that I totally enjoyed. But I was expecting it - so I wasn't assuming I was going to see the stage rendition with virtuoso singing performances at the forefront. I went for the acting, the lyrical interpretation and the actual story and I thought it was a winner with all three. It really brings you into it in a much more personal way. Definitely one to skip the mascara and bring the kleenex box to.

Christoph Waltz is THE man. And Jamie Foxx, Leo DiCap (too lazy to write out the -rio) and Samuel L. Jackson weren't too shabby either. Don Johnson's part very well could have been the best of the movie. Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be.

Having just seen Les Miserables I have to say that is my favourite!!! I always knew it would be, been dying to see it all of 2012!!! Was such an emotional mess and I thought the singing and acting was really good (except maybe Russell?) A VERY close second would be The Dark Knight Rises!In my opinion, I thought Dark Knight Rises was muuuuuuch better than Avengers :D

I also have a fond memory of The Hunger Games. It's a very interesting story and well-captured on screen.

Alas, I am a Scot and it's only right that I give my backing to a film inspired by (but NOT set in) my own fair land. Disney Pixar's Brave was really wonderful and a film you can watch again and again. And it's made Scotland a hot topic in animation circles, which is good news for my flatmate (who is an animator).

Alas, I am a Scot and it's only right that I give my backing to a film inspired by (but NOT set in) my own fair land. Disney Pixar's Brave was really wonderful and a film you can watch again and again. And it's made Scotland a hot topic in animation circles, which is good news for my flatmate (who is an animator).

.

i love pixar, i think you know that, and the film was gorgeous to look at, but from a story point of view, it was a little lacking. i think part of it was that i have come to expect romance in Disney/pixar films of some sort, although thinking about it, the pixar films not so much... i think the biggest issue was that Merida really didn't grow - she got her own way, which is good, but she got it at the expense of her family, and there wasn't any growth - yes, you could argue female empowerment, but empowerment at the expense of others rings wrong to me... i don't know, it just was a little lacking - i gave it a B, only the second Pixar film not to earn a solid A from me (Cars 2 was just... unwatchable, sadly). Live, love, laugh.

i love pixar, i think you know that, and the film was gorgeous to look at, but from a story point of view, it was a little lacking. i think part of it was that i have come to expect romance in Disney/pixar films of some sort, although thinking about it, the pixar films not so much... i think the biggest issue was that Merida really didn't grow - she got her own way, which is good, but she got it at the expense of her family, and there wasn't any growth - yes, you could argue female empowerment, but empowerment at the expense of others rings wrong to me... i don't know, it just was a little lacking - i gave it a B, only the second Pixar film not to earn a solid A from me (Cars 2 was just... unwatchable, sadly).

I hear what you are saying; plot-wise, it left something to be desired. Part of me really wanted her to get married at the end, to someone. I think you underestimate the value of the female empowerment element and also the cross-generational family bond - the development of Merida was reflected in the development of an entire society, embracing a "new way". I guess I was much more impressed from a visual standpoint; Pixar never disappoint on that front and this film impressed me a lot, especially with the landscape.

I suppose it spoke to me culturally as well. Of course, Scotland is nothing like that now but a lot of the attitudes were recognisable and compatible with present-day Britain. It's also likely that the Scottish-based humour meant a lot more to me, too.

Les Miserables comes out on the 25th and even though I haven't technically seen it yet, I already know it will be Film of the Year.

Les Miserables has a great chance to win the Oscar as best film but I wouldnt be surprised if Zero Dark Thirty sneaks up and wins just like The Hurt Locker did in 2009. From what I read it sounds great. Hope to see it this weekend.

Lincoln, without question, was the best film of the year, in my option. The acting by Mr. Lewis and Mr. Jones were amazing. The production values, first rate. The story well told by the amazing Mr. Spielberg. The historical acuracy, almost perfect (even the correct markings on General Lee's Traveller.) Oscar's for best picture, best actor, best supporting actor, best director, best screen play, and best set design!

I was terribly disappointed by Les Miserables. How can a director just let the actors "do their thing" as he is quoted as saying. Russel Crowe seemed so concerned with his singing, he forgot to act. Hugh Jackman, who I love, gave a poor performance. What was with his accents? English, Irish, American...they were all there at times. I was thrilled to see Colm Wilkinson, the original and best Jean Valjean, in a cameo as the priest. But was so saddened to hear him sing, that beautiful voice that once touched heaven, is now gone. Extreme close-ups are very effective but only if used periodically, not in every other scene. I so wanted to love this film but couldn't.

Zero Dark Thirty's depiction of torture as a key to Osama's demise bothered me since it claimed accuracy. Good movie, but not the best. Maybe because the story was so over done in the news, CNN specials, History channel film, National Geo Special, and others.

Life of Pi, is a good runner-up, it is visually stunning and an interesting story. I do not understand why others are mentioning films from two to three Oscar cycles ago...maybe they don't get out much, lol.

After the Golden Globes tonight, I am reminded about Argo. In my top five, but not the best. After all, the Globes thought Les Miserables was best...and Hugh Jackman was tops. By-the-way, why was he the only one who could correctly pronounce the name of his film during the entire broadcast?

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.